Spyke
world·World NewsbyMicroWave

Majority of western Europeans think Trump is threat to peace, survey finds

Summary

A YouGov poll in five Western European countries found majorities view Donald Trump as a threat to European peace, with concerns rising after he suspended military aid to Ukraine.

Most respondents oppose Kyiv’s exclusion from U.S.-Russia peace talks and doubt Europe alone could support Ukraine.

Support for increased defense spending remains limited, despite fears that Russia could attack again.

Proposals for European peacekeepers in Ukraine have mixed support. The survey highlights growing skepticism about U.S. commitments to NATO and European security.

Majority of western Europeans think Trump is threat to peace, survey findshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/donald-trump-threat-to-peace-ukraine-talks-survey-western-europeansOpen linkView original on lemmy.world

A majority of Western Europeans also have a better education than the majority of my fellow American citizens.

126
sh.itjust.works

Many europeans always have thought about USA as a threat to peace. The migrants crisis in europe is a direct result of USA fucking up the middle east for decades.

53

And now we have far-right ultranationalistic movements popping up through Europe as a result.

18
feddit.nl

Hi guys, new here on lemmy. Just want to say FKUC Trump!

21

Those words exist for a reason.

The reason being that social media is used to spread russian disinformation at high quantities. So if you see someone praising an imperialist police state full of fascists while claiming some other country is an imperialist police state full of fascists, you can be sure you shouldn't bother debating them since they are being paid to keep repeating the same nonsense. Just call them a tankie and be done with.

4

Right, let me fill you in, Tankies are people who support authoritarian regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, etc. They're all over Lemmy. Sometimes they're very forthright with their ideologies, other times they try to astroturf and pretend to subtly align with our ideals so that they can influence us to do the following: Harm Western World Powers, Dismantle Democracies, Empower China.

The often use words like Bourgeois and Capitalists, speak of NATO as if it were militaristic imperialism, and oppose nonviolent political reforms of all types. They claim to support communism and/or socialism, but they absolutely will not promote any politicial path to implement those which do not involve overthrowing the state or without weakening "liberals". Note that they do not mean a Liberal party, they mean the concept of liberalism.

Primarily you find them on Lemmy ml, Hexbear, and lemmygrad but you will find them all over. They are here. And they hate you. They want your neighbors to get fed up and kill you or vice versa.

avoid the tankies

Or intentionally piss them off, either works

2
sh.itjust.works

Yet support for increased defense spending is limited. I guess there may be a change in attitudes once the Americans enact tarrifs against the EU and/or formally leave NATO.

12
lemmy.sdf.org

Most countries have announced increased defense spending with support across the political spectrum and EU defense stocks are one of the few safe havens left during this tariff nonsense. France has offered a nuclear umbrella to its neighbours. Poland is up to 5% GDP on defence. Not sure what you mean by limited support but maybe I misunderstand.

16

They don't even have to leave NATO formally, just undermine confidence in article 5 enough that it's no longer a deterrent.

9

That is because in countries like The Netherlands, 100 square meters will cost you about €500 000 at the moment. Warming my house on natural gas costs me €10 a day. In the grocery store, the avarage item price is now €3,-. We must have health insurance (good thing!) but if you can't afford it, you have the option to gamble on higher "own risk". That means paying more out of your own pocket. Gasoline is €2 a liter. We also have to reduce CO2 but don't have enough capacity on the grid to support all the green initiatives. Meaning electricity prices go up. Immigrants fleeing from terrible conditions are very welcome here (also, good thing!), but they need to be paid for somehow. Life is expensive and spending more on military means higher taxes or worse services.

Personally I don't have it bad at all and most people still don't, but I can understand why some people see this as a hard pill to swallow.

1

If US commitment to the NATO nuclear umbrella is questioned, Russia will attempt to capitalize on it.

Threats of nuclear action are considerably more believable when there's no threat of nuclear retaliation. Ukraine would never have been invaded if they still had nuclear weapons.

11

Read that as: Majority of Western Europeans suspect ocean of containing water.

10
lemm.ee

I think at this point for majority of the world, this is common sense now.

9
Septapusreply
lemmy.ca

You're right damn this is just hitting me. This chain of events has enabled china to take over much of the Pacific islands and other nations they 'claim' are theirs by historical right. The russians will come for the European continent and the usa will make majorly predatory moves on the American continents. Fuck, the entire world has been made unsafe.

2

Only western Europeans? I would think eastern Europeans are even more terrified of the implications of Trump being an obvious FSB asset.

8

"The great peacemaker" needs big wars so that he can eventually "make" a peace...

6

Breaking news, really. The dude who threatens to invade his allies is a threat to peace, bravo! If we keep up this pace with dealing with the situation, then we are doomed.

2

..and to think that a significant (but probably not primary) reason why Trump is punishing Ukraine is because he wants to oversee a peace treaty regardless of the circumstances, all so that he can earn a Nobel Peace Prize like Obama.

Yes, the man is that shallow and vain.

1
lemmy.today

If the western world turns fully towards darkness as it has before during the world wars, the European ideals will get crushed quickly by superpowers on both sides. I cant see Europe being able to defend itself for long if USA goes fully satanic.

0

The western world does not need to turn into darkness. It never left it.

0
ayyyreply
sh.itjust.works

I’m aware. Voyager’s tagging feature is very useful.

4

Wait, wait. What? You use an app that lets you tag users and keep those tags visible only to you?

1
ayyyreply
sh.itjust.works

I just wish there was a way for them to sync across devices :(

2

Yeah, I noticed that when I got a new phone. Maybe we'll get it.

1

Calling out liberal bullshit doesn't make someone a Russian apologist. Unless everything you hate is Russian, which sounds like the mind of an undeveloped child.

-8
lemmy.ml

Fill us in when any other country has 900 military bases around the world

-6
lemmy.ml

You ask that with zero context as if things happen in a vacuum

-7
ayyyreply
sh.itjust.works

You didn’t answer me. What context justifies invading sovereign countries?

1
lemmy.ml

I'm not going to engage in conversation with someone that just started paying attention to Ukraine two years ago.

-2

So you are saying the invasion of Ukraine was justified because of things that happened before 2 years ago?

2
dufkmreply
lemmy.world

always

Even in July 1914? Interesting take.

2
lemmy.world

Most respondents oppose Kyiv’s exclusion from U.S.-Russia peace talks and doubt Europe alone could support Ukraine

I mean not only did Kyiv host peace talks that excluded Russia (thus came to nothing), but Zelenskyy outlawed talks with Putin so why is he complaining?

And yeah, Europe can’t defend Ukraine alone. The UK for example already sent basically their entire SPG fleet to Ukraine. 7 months ago, Poland had sent basically half of their SPGs to Ukraine. NATO‘s artillery fleet outside of the US is already gutted despite not being at war. France only have enough ammunition to last a few weeks in a bitter fight against Russia per France’s own calculations.

-38
lemmy.world

Russia has broken every treaty they have signed with Ukraine, why even bother after 20+ times?

25
NimdaQAreply
lemmy.world

I mean not really but Russia did violate some agreements but so did Ukraine.

Budapest Memorandum was made null and void when the US sanctioned Belarus which is explicitly prohibited in the agreement.

One can argue that Russian actions in 2014 violated the 1997 treaty on friendship.

Minsk II was made null and void after Ukraine not only refused to implement them but created laws that violated the spirit of the agreement and this is more or less the main reason 2022 invasion happened.

All the treaties except for the Minsk Agreements were basically made null and void following the 2014 coup.

Minsk I was violated by Russia almost immediately after it was made.

2003 treaty on Russian-Ukrainian border really only gave “legal basis for initiating the process of marking the Russia–Ukraine state border on the ground.”

-22
lemmy.world

Budapest Memorandum was made null and void when the US sanctioned Belarus which is explicitly prohibited in the agreement

Oh you mean the one where Ukraine disarmed itself in exchange for sovereignty and protection and Russia armed up and got sanctioned for breaking the agreement. What a dumb fucking example.

The 1997 Treaty on Friendship was not renewed although one can argue that Russian actions in 2014 violated it.

One can argue? No Russia broke this agreement too.

Minsk II was made null and void after Ukraine not only refused to implement them but created laws that violated the spirit of the agreement.

All the treaties except for the Minsk Agreements were basically made null and void following the 2014 coup.

Minsk I was violated by Russia almost immediately after it was made.

Minsk Agreements had already been violated by Russian troops more than 4000 times, as noted by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense during a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Inter-Parliamentary Council. Ukrainians were shelled both from the temporarily occupied territories and from across the Russian border.

Russia has never honoured a single agreement with Ukraine, and has used each treaty to force Ukraine to weaken itself.

Fuck off.

19
NimdaQAreply
lemmy.world

Oh you mean the one where Ukraine disarmed itself in exchange for sovereignty and protection and Russia armed up and got sanctioned for breaking the agreement. What a dumb fucking example.

No it isn't, US sanctioned Belarus in 2013 in violation of the agreement and America's only response was that the Memorandum is "not legally binding" and this action made it null and void in its entirety.

One can argue? No Russia broke this agreement too.

It depends if you consider null and void due to 2014 coup or not.

Minsk Agreements had already been violated by Russian troops more than 4000 times, as noted by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense during a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Inter-Parliamentary Council. Ukrainians were shelled both from the temporarily occupied territories and from across the Russian border.

No Russian action undertaken under the Minsk II agreements ever violated the SPIRIT of the agreement. There were ceasefire violations but Russia never violated the spirit of the agreement.

It is for example, true that Russian-backed forces launched an offensive to capture a strategically important area but the fighting died down after 5 days when Minsk II came into effect when the area was captured and Russia also claimed that Minsk II did not apply to Debaltseve and Ukraine used similar arguments when launching their own operations into grey zones as you can see here:

"Yuriy Biriukov, an adviser to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, says that almost the entire "grey" zone in Donbas, eastern Ukraine, has been liberated from Russian-led forces without breaching the Minsk peace agreements and is under control of the Ukrainian army."

Zelenskyy on the other hand, refused to federalize the country despite Ukraine having the obligation to give eastern territories autonomy through federalizing the country because of the Minsk Agreements. Ukraine also had the obligation to uphold linguistic rights to ethnic minorities but violated the Minsk Agreements with the 2019 language law which didn’t outright ban the Russian language but did discriminate against those who did not speak Ukrainian or an EU language.

Fuck off.

Rude.

-11
lemmy.world

No it isn't, US sanctioned Belarus in 2013 in violation of the agreement and America's only response was that the Memorandum is "not legally binding" and this action made it null and void in its entirety.

Ukraine followed the agreement and disarmed itself, Russia did not and actually armed up, you skipped that part... Russia was also forbidden to continue military actions and they did anyway. (This included the illegal occupation of Crimea, followed by a falsified gun-point referendum. By doing this, Russia completely disregarded its obligations to respect Ukrainian borders and independence).

It depends if you consider null and void due to 2014 coup or not.

It depends? One can argue? Do you want to commit here or just dance around the point

No Russian action undertaken under the Minsk II agreements ever violated the SPIRIT of the agreement. While you can claim they technically violated the agreement, they did not violate the spirit of the agreement as both sides generally observed the cease fire aside form the occasional shelling from both sides.

The spirit of the agreement? What the fuck are you talking about... They broke the agreement thousands of times.

Rude.

Fuck you, fuck off and fuck Russia.

8
NimdaQAreply
lemmy.world

Ukraine followed the agreement and disarmed itself, Russia did not and actually armed up, you skipped that part…

Nothing in the Budapest Memorandum forced Russia to disarm itself.

Russia was also forbidden to continue military actions and they did anyway. (This included the illegal occupation of Crimea, followed by a falsified gun-point referendum. By doing this, Russia completely disregarded its obligations to respect Ukrainian borders and independence).

Such actions were undertaken after US sanctioned Belarus in 2013 in violation of the agreement thus it was already by that point, null and void in its entirety.

It depends? One can argue? Do you want to commit here or just dance around the point

If you want my opinion, the 2014 coup made all previous agreements null and void. I mean the coup happened because snipers part of the maidan movement shot their own protestors as a false flag resulting in Yanukovych's regime's downfall.

The spirit of the agreement? What the fuck are you talking about… They broke the agreement thousands of times.

According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense....

Nonetheless, no Russian actions ever broken the spirit of the agreement. Minsk II was supposed to bring peace to Ukraine by providing more autonomy to regions with large ethnic minority populations, ceasefire violations committed by both sides does not violate the spirit of the agreement.

The entire agreement was Ukraine allows local elections, Russia withdraws then everyone’s happy. Russia can’t do its part if Ukraine doesn’t.

Fuck you, fuck off and fuck Russia.

Again, rude.

-13

You argue in such bad faith. You also just appeared on Lemmy to spread misinformation and it's clear that everyone here realises that.

So to continue this would just give you more opportunities to spread your bullshit, so I'm going to just block you and move on.

Also fuck you and fuck off back to reddit.

9
lemmy.world

Your arguments in this thread are in bad faith.

For example treating the term "federalize" as if it's just a switch one can throw. If you actually know what federalization is, you would understand that the process takes massive legal effort, likely years, of alignment of legal processes.

6
NimdaQAreply
lemmy.world

Are they? Ukraine had many years to implement the Minsk agreement, Instead, Ukraine proceeded to implement new language laws which discriminated against the Russian language (going against the agreement), continued to imprison and torture political dissidents after the agreement was made as per Amnesty International which was also in violation of the Minsk Agreement which explicity stated that Ukraine was not allowed to imprison or punish people due to events related to the war in Donbas. Ukraine also refused to allow local elections.

"Ukraine insists that local elections can take place only after a complete ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian troops and weapons.

Clear violation of spirit of agreement as such Russian forces were necessary for protecting the autonomy of the people in the Donbas until Minsk implementation.

The entire agreement was Ukraine allows local elections, Russia withdraws then everyone’s happy. Russia can’t do its part if Ukraine doesn’t

-13

Are they?

Yes.

You cherry-pick parts of historical record to promote a narrative that is absolutely not true by suggesting what did happen is somehow a mirage.

And next time your Russian boss tells you to promote their agenda, be a bit more subtle and don't give yourself away by decrying "descrimination against Russian language".

красный интернет-шпион.

2
lemmy.ca

Account created just today and spouting mostly russian propaganda. Fuck outta here dumbass.

11
NimdaQAreply
lemmy.world

Migrated here from Reddit. Also spouting anti-Trump statements.

-13
Lasherzreply
lemmy.world

Absolutely wild equivocations made here. "One could argue" Yes, one could argue that invading another country could violate a peace treaty... I hope you're trolling and not really this cooked.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

It was not "explicitly prohibited" by the agreement. Stop spreading misinformation. This is a quick read to find out how obviously wrong you are.

Your language alone is suspicious. "Budapest Memorandum WAS made null and void" for something that wasn't disallowed by the agreement. Meanwhile, "One can argue that Russian actions (passive language) on 2014" for something that was EXPLICITLY forbidden.

10

It was not “explicitly prohibited” by the agreement. Stop spreading misinformation. This is a quick read to find out how obviously wrong you are.

Yes it was,

"Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind."

Try again.

Meanwhile, “One can argue that Russian actions (passive language) on 2014” for something that was EXPLICITLY forbidden.

It depends if you consider it null and void due to 2014 coup. If you don't, it was in violation of that agreement.

-10